On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:03PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:> > > > All things are not equal; they all have different properties. I like> > > > Exactly. So we have to explore those properties and evaluate performance> > (in all meanings of the word). That's only logical.> > I had a quick look at Ingo's code yesterday. Ingo is always smart to > prepare a main dish (feature) with a nice sider (code cleanup) to Linus ;)> And even this code does that pretty nicely. The deadline designs looks > good, although I think the final "key" calculation code will end up quite > different from what it looks now.> I would suggest to thoroughly test all your alternatives before deciding. > Some code and design may look very good and small at the beginning, but > when you start patching it to cover all the dark spots, you effectively > end up with another thing (in both design and code footprint).> About O(1), I never thought it was a must (besides a good marketing > material), and O(log(N)) *may* be just fine (to be verified, of course).

To be clear, I'm not saying O(logN) itself is a big problem. Type

plot [10:100] x with lines, log(x) with lines, 1 with lines

into gnuplot. I was just trying to point out that we need to evalutethings. Considering how long we've had this scheduler with its knowndeficiencies, let's pick a new one wisely.-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/